Works fine for me! I have nothing to hide, so they can listen to me any time.

If you have something to hide, legal or not, I want someone able to listen to you and stop you doing something dangerous.

I can't figure out whether or not you are trolling, but this comment is scary and I'll bite. Just because "you have nothing to hide" doesn't mean you should blithely give up privacy like that. There are bits of a person's life that are private, and that anonymous little bureaucrats, marketers, self-important do-gooders or any other form of nosey parker shouldn't be able to just trawl-through and or datamatch on a whim. And, if you really don't care about your privacy at all, feel free to prove it by posting copies of all your bank statements, medical records, family school records and private correspondence for the last five years so we can all take a good look....... after all, everything may be legal, but one of us might spot something "dangerous"

More seriously, there are clearly cases where people need to be put under surveillance. When this happens, there needs to be good reason for the proper agencies to feel there is a real threat, and it needs to be legally authorised, with proper oversight, and safeguards etc. Ideally, the authorities should have to apply to a judge for a warrant. But for the electorate to accept that it's OK for government bodies to drift-net the private lives of the entire population on the off-chance that they might be doing something that an official doesn't approve of is a very, very silly thing to do.

Once it starts where does it stop - and what do you mean by "something legal but dangerous"? Maybe the Ministry of Health can require you to undergo compulsory counselling because your EFTPOS records show you have consumed what an official considers a "dangerous" amount of beer in the last week?

Works fine for me! I have nothing to hide, so they can listen to me any time.

If you have something to hide, legal or not, I want someone able to listen to you and stop you doing something dangerous.

Once it starts where does it stop - and what do you mean by "something legal but dangerous"? Maybe the Ministry of Health can require you to undergo compulsory counselling because your EFTPOS records show you have consumed what an official considers a "dangerous" amount of beer in the last week?

Works fine for me! I have nothing to hide, so they can listen to me any time.

If you have something to hide, legal or not, I want someone able to listen to you and stop you doing something dangerous.

I can't figure out whether or not you are trolling, but this comment is scary and I'll bite. Just because "you have nothing to hide" doesn't mean you should blithely give up privacy like that. There are bits of a person's life that are private, and that anonymous little bureaucrats, marketers, self-important do-gooders or any other form of nosey parker shouldn't be able to just trawl-through and or datamatch on a whim. And, if you really don't care about your privacy at all, feel free to prove it by posting copies of all your bank statements, medical records, family school records and private correspondence for the last five years so we can all take a good look....... after all, everything may be legal, but one of us might spot something "dangerous"

More seriously, there are clearly cases where people need to be put under surveillance. When this happens, there needs to be good reason for the proper agencies to feel there is a real threat, and it needs to be legally authorised, with proper oversight, and safeguards etc. Ideally, the authorities should have to apply to a judge for a warrant. But for the electorate to accept that it's OK for government bodies to drift-net the private lives of the entire population on the off-chance that they might be doing something that an official doesn't approve of is a very, very silly thing to do.

Once it starts where does it stop - and what do you mean by "something legal but dangerous"? Maybe the Ministry of Health can require you to undergo compulsory counselling because your EFTPOS records show you have consumed what an official considers a "dangerous" amount of beer in the last week?

No I am not trolling, this is how I feel, and there is a difference between posting my details for EVERYONE to see, and knowing that security agencies from various countries CAN look IF they want to.

This has been thoroughly proven to be an incorrect statement. Try a Google search next time ;)

The proposition that no person free of guilt has anything to hide can simply be disproven by requesting your credit card statements for the previous year, your internet banking information (customer number & password), your masturbation habits (times/frequencies/stimuli) and a naked photograph. If you're happy to provide these then I'm sure the internet can find something you are not happy to provide ;)

For information on specific fallacies this idea appears in, you have:

False Dilemma:

"Either one must divulge requested information, or one is guilty."

Affirmation of the Consequent:

1) People who are guilty will withhold information.2) This person is withholding information.3) Therefore, this person is guilty.

Some arguments against not caring that your privacy could be invaded.

1) You do not set the rules about what you have to 'hide' or be 'guilty' of and they may change.

If you have seen the YouTube video on speaking with the police you will understand the first part of this point well. You have no idea what may be considered 'wrong' or 'dangerous' about your personal life either now or any time in the future. Even the most innocent information may be used at a later time to prosecute you.

Once the rules have been set, how difficult do you think it will be to change them? What about for a special emergency - like the laws rushed into power under the Christchurch state of emergency? Much less difficult than you think.

2) You assume people listening to you have the correct information.

This should be at the forefront of everybody's minds right now. Kim Dotcom was spied upon illegally because of a communication error. A government agency broke the law it is supposed to protect - most likely deliberately because the suspension of belief required for their explanation is incredible. If these kind of 'mistakes' occur when direct governmental approval is required then imagine the mess if they were allowed to access everybody at any time. I'm sure you wouldn't mind having your month disrupted, hauled to prison and every aspect of your life examined because someone with the same birth date as you was overheard plotting to kill John Key. Not to mention the press coverage and your face on every paper/magazine & television. But I'm sure that is fair enough to improve our national security, right?

3) The final argument against providing your personal information to governmental agencies is that it sidesteps the real fallacy: factual innocence being relevant to any kind of prosecution.

The assumption is that a governmental agency monitoring you will find factual evidence proving your innocence for x - therefore you have nothing to fear. This is not true for many people but does not make them guilty of x as a result. This is why for any investigation, a government agent must prove (to a judge) why surveillance is necessary. Any investigator must prove a person's guilt; the accused party does not have to prove their innocence.

I don't know if you are seeing fit to model yourself on Jesus - "Do not give what is holy to the dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces." - or if you are you just saying that his advice to keep quiet if you have words of wisdom should be kept to? If the latter, I trust that you will be taking your own advice on board and will be keeping what you consider to be your own pearls of wisdom to yourself.

Alternatively, you could, of course, be referring to the "Pearls of Wisdom" comic strip which is about a dim pig and an arrogant rat. As you have told us thet we are the swine, I would then take it that you are saying that you consider yourself to be the arrogant rat?

When yo 'accept' the terms for many of the apps you download to your smart-devices, you are authorising the developers/owner to collect data directly from your device.

You're saying it's OK that they know where you are and who you interact with. You've legalised their spying. What the difference between (say) apple having access to this information, because you've said it's OK. And a government agency having access to it through a legitimate court order?

So "legally" and and "legitimately" are in fact the same issue and Jarno is quite correct in his usage.

I trust that your loose comments do not extend to the common ploy of lying as is condoned by even Al Gore who states that is ok behaviour for activists in order for them to deliver their important (sic) messages?

So "legally" and and "legitimately" are in fact the same issue and Jarno is quite correct in his usage.

I trust that your loose comments do not extend to the common ploy of lying as is condoned by even Al Gore who states that is ok behaviour for activists in order for them to deliver their important (sic) messages?

They are not.

I can't argue that a particular action might be legal. It will be or won't be.

But I can absolutely be of the opinion that it is not legitimate....legal or not.

They are not the same in all contexts.

For example, there is no doubt that President Assad in Syria is the legal head of state. But his legitimacy as head of state in Syria is currently under armed, militant dispute.

Legality and legitimacy are not the same.

____________________________________________________I'm on a high fibre diet.

I can't argue that a particular action might be legal. It will be or won't be.

But I can absolutely be of the opinion that it is not legitimate....legal or not.

They are not the same in all contexts.

Nope in the context of legality which is all this topic is about really, you can't say it's not legitimate when it's legal. You may not LIKE it, which is a completely different thing, but it's legitimate if it's legal.

I think you are confusing the fact it doesn't FEEL right with it's not legitimate.

Well, true to form the defense of activists is to rejig reality into a falsehood to suit their beliefs.

But as far as I am concerned you'll have to take it up with the Oxford Dictionary people if you disagree. Let us all know how you get on, but until then I (and I suspect most) will put their lot in with the Dictionary's definition, not yours.

There probably is such a room somewhere in Auckland, though i've not heard a sniff of existence about it, since anyone letting it slip would be in loads of trouble.

Why put it in Auckland when you can capture it all at the other end of the cable? (saves on tinfoil hats too)

Sure, I'm happy to admit you may be right but I am yet to see a single - even theoretical - case in which the encryption I am using may be decrypted by a third 'MitM' party. The SIS/GCSB/NSA/FBI and any other acronym are welcome to my encrypted packets for all the good it will do them.